I got called once and was dismissed without them ever even asking me a question. It was a domestic violence case so I guess my demographic plus the death glare I was giving to the defendant spoke volumes.
I found this opinion enlightening: <a class="postlink" href="http://blog.independent.org/2011/07/07/innocent-until-proven-guilty/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://blog.independent.org/2011/07/07/ ... en-guilty/</a>
In case you wanted to show a second almost completely pointless gesture, you know besides the porch light thing, for that bitch not getting her comeuppance. It appears a nearly unpassable law is being petitioned on change.org to make it a federal crime not to report missing or dead children. Let's go social media!
Juries are fucking up all over North America. In Montreal, a doctor was just aquitted of NOT being criminally responsible for his children's brutal murders. A couple of facts: 1) His wife cheated on him, so he took revenge (after telling his wife he would) by stabbing his 5 year old son and 3 year old daughter 46 TIMES. His son begged and screamed for their lives before he murdered them. He confessed to all of this. 2) He refused to pay for his children's funerals in any way. The judge refused to allow this fact be heard in court. So nowadays, apparently you can just butcher your children, claim temporary insanity, and skate scot-free. How the fuck does this shit happen? This was premeditated, calculated, cold and brutal. IT IS FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE HE IS NOT ANYTHING BUT ENTIRELY RESPONSIBLE. He shouldn't go free, he should be beaten to death with a fucking rock. I really, really hate the justice system sometimes.
Pssh no one cares about adults, particularly brown adults! Google Marcus Feisel, 3 year old autistic boy who lived in his own piss and feces until the state took him away from his mother only to give him to a bi-polar foster parents who then killed him in a similar fashion to this Anthony case.
But apparently only when a (probably) guilty man goes free? If an innocent person is wrongly convicted and sentenced to death or life in prison, oh well, thems the breaks, huh? What point are you trying to make here by posting about that case? That because there's this one case where a likely horrible man got away with a terrible crime that people accused of breaking the law have too many rights and protections? That an accused's rights should vary based on the emotional visceralness of the crime in question?
Dear Prosecutor, Please review the concept of lesser included offenses. Sincerely, Everyone who still remembers taking the bar exam
Because of the magic of so-called "temporary insanity". Want to butcher your kids like pigs? Claim your wife met someone with a bigger dick. Want to kill the mayor of San Fran in cold blood? Claim you ate something with sugar in it and you went cookoo for cocoa puffs..
Exactly. If you look at the things she was convicted of lying about, it was telling the police she had a job at Universal Studios, making up the existence of the nanny, and two others that led the police on a wild goose chase while they were still looking for Caylee. I'm a bit surprised that the judge gave her the maximum on all four counts. I've read that it's extremely rare for someone to receive the maximum sentence for a misdemeanor, and it seems like a bit of sour grapes when the end result is that she'll only have to spend one more week in jail anyway.
Why would that be accepted? Are you saying that if you refuse to pay for a funeral, it's evidence you killed them? Juries all over are fucking up? So either the entire legal system is broken, or you're spouting random cases to prove an irrelevant point and don't know what you're talking about. Which seems more likely?
It's a legal system, not a justice system. There are X Y and Z rules, put your foot in the middle and shake it all around, and hopefully justice gets spit out at the other end. I think there are flaws with the system, but by and large it does a good job. As much as I think Casey Anthony is guilty, convicting someone on largely circumstantial evidence would be a nightmare. Being able to convict and sentence someone to death on a hunch, or because someone "looked" guilty, would cause a lot of innocent people to have to prove their innocence instead of the prosecutor proving their guilt. That, I think, would be a bigger crime. Having a system set up like that would allow the government to harass the hell out of whoever they want (they still can to an extent, but yay civil liberties).
The defense was that Dan White was depressed, and that his reliance on sweets was symptomatic, not causitive. He was convicted for manslaughter, it wasn't like he got off scot-free. Also, he later committed suicide, so maybe there was something to that whole defense after all. 1.) The insanity defense is really hard to use successfully. 2.) It doesn't just let you off scot-free:
And once you do, it doesn't mean you're free to go jaunting through the park, you're then locked up in a mental hospital pending a psych evaluation. And if you got away with murder based on insanity, there's probably a good chance you're going to stay locked up in a mental institution. It's a legitimate defense. Not the most satisfying, but still legitimate. And is it just me, or does "manslaughter" sound way more brutal and terrible than "murder?"
If there's more to that trial, feel free to fill me in because there was limited coverage of it down here and I know people are going apeshit over it. Bill Maher about Kim Kardashian: [/quote]